## Facts

- Nicholas Sytsema, a child with autism, became eligible for special-education services when he turned three, shifting responsibility for providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to Academy School District No. 20.
- For the 2001–2002 school year, the District’s IEP team produced a written draft IEP proposing, among other services, approximately 10 hours per week in an integrated preschool classroom.
- Nicholas’s parents objected to the integrated classroom component, rejected the draft, and continued privately funded in-home and private preschool programming.
- District personnel had informal discussions with the parents about possible changes (including increased service hours), but the District did not memorialize any changes in a final written IEP for 2001–2002.
- For the 2002–2003 school year, the IEP team met again and finalized a written IEP that included integrated classroom time and specified services aimed at addressing autism-related needs and skill generalization.
- The parents again declined to accept the District’s plan, maintained their private program, and sought IDEA due-process relief and reimbursement for both years.

## Issues

1. Whether the District’s failure to finalize a written IEP for 2001–2002, by itself, established a denial of FAPE warranting tuition reimbursement, or whether a court must assess whether the written draft IEP was substantively inadequate.
2. Whether the finalized 2002–2003 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit under IDEA despite parental disagreement with placement and methodology.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s reimbursement award for 2001–2002 and remanded for the court to determine whether the written 2001 draft IEP, as written, substantively denied FAPE.
- The court directed that the 2001–2002 analysis be confined to the written draft IEP and exclude oral discussions or unmemorialized negotiations.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of reimbursement for 2002–2003, holding the finalized IEP complied with IDEA and was reasonably calculated to provide more than de minimis educational benefit.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA, a procedural violation (including failure to finalize an IEP) does not automatically entitle parents to reimbursement; relief requires a showing that the violation impeded FAPE, significantly impeded parental participation, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
- Judicial review of an IEP’s adequacy centers on the written IEP; informal oral understandings not incorporated into the document are not treated as part of the operative plan.
- An IEP satisfies FAPE if it is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit; IDEA does not require maximizing potential or adopting parents’ preferred methodology or service configuration.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that reimbursement cannot rest solely on the District’s failure to finalize an IEP for 2001–2002 and required a remand to assess the written draft’s substantive adequacy, while upholding the 2002–2003 IEP as compliant with IDEA’s FAPE standard despite parental disagreement over placement and methods.


Sytsema v. Acad. Sch. Dist. No. 20, 538 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2008)